Geisha Affair?

Eros knock-off. Checked 2 cities for normal provider types - no hits. Worthless INHO

John Bull, I think that Geisha Affair is new. So it is just beginning to sign up providers. I have found a few that I know, but most ladies probably don't know about it yet.

It is something that I will keep an eye on. If many ladies sign up, I will follow it. It didn't seem like there was any place for clients to sign up.

I enjoyed watching a 30 second clip of a provider. That was a good feature.

Eros knock-off. Checked 2 cities for normal provider types - no hits. Worthless INHO Originally Posted by John Bull

+1, but I know it's new. Final opinion to come.

I've been saying for the past few weeks that I was coming t advertise there....but I always seem to get busy and it slips my mind..as soon as I get a chance, tins week, I'm going to do it! I'll be spreading the word to the guys in my local and touring areas also....hi Lynette....good to see you....Jenna

If Jenna Love is on it, I will start paying attention.

Please, Jenna, if you have any video of your t-shirt in the shower pics (which is one of the hottest collection of pics on ECCIE), post that at Geisha Affair.

LynetteMarie - "They seem to be much more interested in the provider's POV."

I really don't think so.

Yes it's an attractive looking site, but I recommended the photographer to someone and she was told that she would have no privacy for her photos unless she paid double the photography fee to also own the copyright.

This may be legally enforceable for a photographer but I have heard of both male and female photographers in this business who can be trusted to keep escort photos secret - preferably destroy them as soon as they're handed over to the escort - without charging extra.

I think this is a very disappointing policy for Meeshee to choose to follow and I hope that no girl gets caught through ignorance, in allowing someone else control of her image which could destroy her life at any time.

Dear Leah, et al: There was a thread about photo rights either here or the old HDH board. It was spirited discussion. I seem to remember that the "real" photogs discuss with the client about ownership of the rights and prints/photos. As in the photog says for me to take your images and allow usage to your likes is one fee. Complete and total ownership is another fee (read: higher). That seemed to be an industry norm. I used an example if a photog shoots an apple for a print ad, the agency that hired the photog will create a contract for ownership and control of the work.

The bottom line was that if it is disclosed up front before scheduling and contract execution, and both parties agree to who owns and can use what then that is "kosher."

And please someone correct me if I have that wrong (a VERY high possibility).

It's standard practice for the photographer to maintain the rights to the negatives. The photographer charges for the shooting and for the prints. However, it would not only be unethical but actionable if the photog sold or gave prints or the negatives for use by someone other than the original client.
As a user, it is perfectly alright to make an agreement ahead of the shooting that covers the use and ownership of the negatives and all prints but the extra cost will be determined by negotiation and you may always walk away if you don't like the deal.

JB, thanks for putting my thoughts into the English language.

U.S. (or foreign) copyright law may prevail in the matter of original photography. e.g., the creator, absent any agreement to the contrary, owns all of the rights and thus all of the control. But as a matter of practicality....

That might work very well in the Real World, but in the hobby world where virtually anyone may "steal" (copy and use elsewhere) with impunity and little consequence the practical aspect of copyright means very little.

Say Photographer A shoots some nice photos of Lady X and gives her the limited or unlimited right to post and use them to her heart's content. But not the ownership.

Provider D likes the photos and seeing them on the 'net makes copies and uses them in her, say Atlanta or NY BP ads and even posts them on a London, UK based foreign website.

Who, in the instance above, has the legal right to demand their removal from the extraneous websites? (Cease and desist and/or ability to go to court to enforce those rights) The owner of the photos.

Now, I must confess to knowing more than a few legit photographers, designers, etc. And none of them that I know of has the kind of cash needed to hire legal counsel, much less entertain the resulting court costs especially given the very limited jurisdiction any court may have over the zillions of websites out there. Yes, some websites probably will respect a court order, or maybe even a "cease and desist" letter from an attorney or even a photographer. Maybe (LOL).

I sincerely think many of the photographers clients may not have that kind of cash either. Certainly not many providers.

So, what I think I am trying to say is although many of us would sincerely care about where and when our images (especially faces) appear on the 'net, it's almost a losing battle for providers to insist on owning their own images no matter the cost differential.

Ownership in these instances is rarely enforceable, much less feasible.

Possibly a better opportunity imho would be for the photo subject (the provider) to have her own contract drawn up governing and limiting release of the photos with her face or recognizable body parts, and that would be more enforceable.

Let the photographer own the images. He/she cannot release them beyond a certain point or at all even.

I'm not saying that the any of my foregoing is anywhere near practical, however. It's just a thought.

Much more practical (in controlling release of facial photos, is to have "candids" shot by a friend or another provider using your own camera. That way,

-- face identification can be limited;

-- initial posting can be controlled;

-- potential clients will see "reality" and not some images heavily doctored or controlled environment in which a session will rarely happen.

As I said, just some thoughts.

LynetteMarie - "They seem to be much more interested in the provider's POV."

I really don't think so.

Yes it's an attractive looking site, but I recommended the photographer to someone and she was told that she would have no privacy for her photos unless she paid double the photography fee to also own the copyright.

This may be legally enforceable for a photographer but I have heard of both male and female photographers in this business who can be trusted to keep escort photos secret - preferably destroy them as soon as they're handed over to the escort - without charging extra.

I think this is a very disappointing policy for Meeshee to choose to follow and I hope that no girl gets caught through ignorance, in allowing someone else control of her image which could destroy her life at any time. Originally Posted by Leah Ireland

I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. As we all recall, the name of this thread is Geisha Affair?, not Meeshee Photography Business Policies.

When a photographer sell all usage rights to a client's photos (selling the copyright), then the photographer is in fact legally required to first relinquish all of the images to the client and then remove or delete all photos from his/her records - as if the shoot never happened. The client walks away with all of her photos. All related terms and conditions should be stated in the contract. Most photographers charge a lot more for release of copyright and that's how it should be. It only makes sense.

In this case, the good thing about photographers is that there are many of us. If you don't like the business practices of one photographer, you've gone lots to choose from. If you don't want to pay extra for owning the copyrights to your photos, you can always go to a photographer who doesn't charge you. They're out there. However, a professional and experienced photographer should and will have concrete terms and conditions by which he or she abides. As a professional photographer of 7 years who caters exclusively to companions, I uphold and abide by all terms and conditions of every one of my clients with a legal contract in writing for all to clearly understand. This ensures my clients' satisfaction and instills their trust in me. Additionally, I always provide references should new clients be interested.

As many others here in this thread have clearly demonstrated an accurate and legal understanding about copyright (not just a naive opinion based upon hearsay), I think we can put this subject to bed and stick with the topic at hand. And yes, there was a rather spirited thread here on ECCIE, not that long ago, about copyright.

John Bull, I think that Geisha Affair is new. So it is just beginning to sign up providers. I have found a few that I know, but most ladies probably don't know about it yet.

It is something that I will keep an eye on. If many ladies sign up, I will follow it. It didn't seem like there was any place for clients to sign up.

I enjoyed watching a 30 second clip of a provider. That was a good feature. Originally Posted by Redwolf

Yes, Geisha Affair is new. More and more providers and hobbyists are talking about GA as I have heard from my friends/clients in the industry around the nation. As everyone really gets to know the site, they will see that GA is unparalleled and stands in a caliber all its own. It is chalk full of many features all included in one membership - 17 large format images, video, multiple profiles in one, immediate approval and more. The providers who have joined love the site.

On the home page of GA and on every page, there is a button that you can click called "Sign Up" right at the top and walks you through the process. Contrary to another major competitor, after the profile is submitted for approval, the approval is immediate (less than 30 minutes).

And the customer service is stellar - 24/7. Everyone knows that the competition offers virtually no customer service. And I've heard from even the most computer saavy ladies how difficult it is to upload their photos. They often have to call to find out how to do it. And if the competitor has to upload the photos for them they have to wait often for 48 hours. With GA, photos of any size can be posted and the system will automatically (and beautifully) post them, seemlessly. Plus, you can crop, blur, or format anyway you like. They post immediately.

GA allows unlimited changes to your profile 24/7 and will not charge for them. Elsewhere, profile changes are limited.

We have heard so many complaints from the ladies about expensive advertising fees. One client of mine pays over $675 a month. Right now, GA is free. But even after fees kick in they will be a fraction of those elsewhere.

Right now, hobbyists can post reviews for free. If you'd like to do so but don't see your lady on GA, ask her to sign up and then the review can be posted.

As Leah mentioned, the site is very attractive and was more than 2 years in the making. Take a few minutes to peruse the site and you'll see why.

As many others here in this thread have clearly demonstrated an accurate and legal understanding about copyright (not just a naive opinion based upon hearsay), I think we can put this subject to bed. Originally Posted by Meeshee

I'm sorry but hearsay is all about the internet (and vice versa). Let's not clutter any discussion with facts and reality. LOL Can we put your subjects (clients) to bed?

PS: Meeshee I do love your work and ability to shoot the women of our desires so well. You have an "eye!"

I sorry hearsay is all about the internet (and vice versa). Let's not clutter any discussion with facts and reality. LOL Can we put your subjects (clients) to bed?

PS: Meeshee I do love your work and ability to shoot the women of our desires so well. You have an "eye!" Originally Posted by SR Only

ha ha ha ha

Apart from the subject, not sure about putting my clients to bed. But Geisha Affair might be a good place to start!

p.s. thank you for the compliment.

Am I the only person who noticed a lot of their material was obviously written by someone who doesn't natively speak English and they didn't have sufficient professionalism to have it proof-read?